validate_script

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses a key behavior (does not attach the script) and states that it returns validity as data, which implies non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention error handling, require file existence, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficiently worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes a key differentiator, earning a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It gives a high-level summary but leaves 'validity as data' ambiguous—does it return a boolean, a list of errors, or an object? This incompleteness could confuse an agent interpreting the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly describe the 'path' parameter, but with only one parameter and the tool's name and description, the meaning is largely inferable. This is adequate but not thorough.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies a concrete verb ('compile-check') and a clear resource ('GDScript file'), and adds a crucial differentiator: 'without attaching it'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_script or edit_script, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'without attaching it' implies the tool is for validation in isolation, contrasting with attach_script. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other script-related tools or name alternatives, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.